Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to speak on my private members' bill, the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012. I, like my coalition colleagues, believe very strongly in supporting not only our Australian Defence Force personnel but their families: their spouses and, indeed, their dependants. Spouses or partners of ADF members and their dependants give so much to our nation. They are the ones who, indeed, enable our ADF personnel. They are the ones who have the biggest influence on whether our ADF personnel choose to remain in the service of their nation in uniform. They are the ones who offer the greatest support to their serving family members. They are the ones who so often experience the greater hardships, greater stresses, constant rotations, in many cases constant deployments and certainly constant training schedules. They are the ones who know so many sacrifices that so few of us ever will.

For the families of those who fight I am pleased to be able to speak on my private members' bill on behalf of the coalition. Simply put, the bill will ensure that spouses and dependants of ADF lateral transfer members—those serving members from other countries' militaries who seek to come and serve with our flag on their right shoulder—will be able to gain citizenship at the same time as their serving ADF member. It is the right and fair thing to do. It is just. It honours those who honour us.

ADF lateral transfers are members who have served in another nation's military and have subsequently moved to Australia to serve in our Australian Defence Force. They come from a wide variety of countries, including New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Our Defence Force has a long and proud record of recruiting members from the armed forces of other countries. We do so in order to fill our current capability gaps. We do it in most cases only where it serves or suits the parent country. For example, our Navy is presently taking advantage of the United Kingdom's strategic defence and security review, which amongst other things is reducing the number of personnel across the UK's four services. It is in this context and this move by the Cameron government that our Navy is increasing its recruitment of Royal Navy personnel in order to fill our capability gaps. It could take over a decade to recruit, train, sustain and skill engineers, pilots or other personnel with exceptionally high levels of skill. Having these personnel with their current skills transfer from other militaries into our Commonwealth takes an enormous amount of time and money. According to the 2010 Defence Families of Australia lateral recruit survey, in the past, the vast majority of lateral recruits have come from the UK, are married, have school-age children and, until recently, most have joined the Australian Regular Army. They are most likely to be posted to Darwin or the east coast and are most likely to live in a Defence Housing Authority, DHA, house and choose school and childcare in close proximity to their home. Less than 50 per cent of families had visited Australia before immigrating as a lateral transfer. The majority of families had only a vague idea of what support was available to them and their children through defence and most received information on financing, housing, and general knowledge from other lateral recruits, friends or unit hosts.

The ADF are presently looking to recruit, on their own numbers, up to as many as 300 lateral transfer personnel each year. Importantly, 90 per cent of these will probably have families they will be looking to bring to Australia. It is the care for these families that is foremost in the mind of the decision maker: the lateral transfer member who is seeking to join the ADF.

In terms of the Australian Citizenship Act, all lateral transfers are required by law to qualify for permanent residency visas before a member can take up a position within the Australian Defence Force and subsequently move to Australia. This is necessary as all ADF members are required to be Australian citizens and permanent residency is a prerequisite. Spouses, partners and dependants of ADF lateral transfers, at the time of moving to Australia, are afforded permanent residency but they are not afforded citizenship in line with the lateral transfer member. Under the Citizenship Act, a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days service in the ADF or six months in the reserves. These sections are regularly used in support of lateral transfer ADF members. The provision for 'early' citizenship under the act does not apply to the spouse or partner of the ADF member and nor does it include dependants aged 16 or over—those who cannot be included on the ADF member's citizenship application.

This situation can, and does, lead to discord within families of lateral transfer members. For example, Australia currently has ADF lateral transfer members not only serving extensively within our ranks at home but also serving in combat operations overseas. The figures I have indicated are that at the latter part of last year there were seven lateral serving members on combat operations in Afghanistan with MTF3 and three with the Force Support Unit. There were 10 lateral serving members on combat operations last year in Afghanistan whose families, for the most part, were not accorded Australian citizenship. Their partners were accorded citizenship and fought overseas with our flag on their shoulder, but that right of citizenship was not extended to their families. That is what this private member's bill is all about.

It is noted that, should such a member be killed in training or indeed in combat operations, there appears to be no legislative basis or guarantee that their spouse or dependants would be able to stay in Australia or have access to the range of benefits normally payable to the spouses and dependants of Australian ADF members. This has been taken up with the government, and I appreciate that the government has made every assurance that this support would be provided; however there is little legislative evidence of such assurance. This is one purpose of this bill—to provide this piece of mind.

It is also interesting to note that there are significant issues for dependants for ADF lateral transfer members. Because they are not citizens and are not accorded that right for up to four years they may not be eligible for Centrelink benefits or university HELP based placements. This bill corrects these issues.

The bill reflects the fact that behind and beside every serving member is a supportive serving family. This bill reflects the fact that we request, we desire and we truly want the serving men and women of other militaries to come and stand and serve with us—to bring their skills, knowledge and experience to fill our gaps. This bill reflects the fact that families are foremost in the minds of those members when they seek to make those types of choices.

I know that my opposite, the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, actually believes quite strongly in this bill and has been seeking for some time to actually get this bill before the House, to the extent that when this private member's bill went in on Monday the minister's bill then went on Thursday—a bill which seemed to be an exact copy of the bill except that theirs broadens the scope of 'dependants' to include elderly parents and dependents with a disability and to reduce the service component from six months to 90 days.

The minister could simply have amended this private member's bill. I informed him that we would be more than happy to do that and would accept their amendments. But the government, somewhat disingenuously, chose to introduce their own bill—perhaps not wanting the issue to escape from under their watch, even though they have had four years and done nothing. In fact, Minister Snowdon wrote to Minister Bowen on 16 November 2010—and he received a reply 87 days later. So it is good to know that minister to minister takes an exorbitant amount of time, let alone minister to opposition. In that reply, Minister Bowen categorically said no to Minister Snowden's request for such a bill. In fact, he even said.

As I am sure you will appreciate, requests to amend the citizenship legislation cannot be considered in isolation, but must be looked at in the context of the wider migration and citizenship programs.

That is, I guess, until the opposition puts in a private member's bill—and then all of the minister's rhetoric is thrown out the door as they desperately try to show that they too are across this important issue, by introducing their own bill a few days later. Well, we all know that there is no higher praise than imitation, so we accept that the government is putting their bill. Of course, the coalition will not stand in the way, whichever bill is voted on first. The key thing is that those families, spouses and dependants of lateral transfer members are afforded the rights and protections that they deserve.

In conclusion, the coalition fully appreciates the sacrifices that ADF members and their families make, including those members who have come here under lateral transfer arrangements. We recognise the importance of ensuring tight family groupings, and we consider the current lateral transfer arrangements to be failing in promoting this outcome. This bill will remove the inequitable treatment of spouses and dependants of lateral transfer members. It will ensure that they all have access to citizenship at the same time and that spouses and dependent children of lateral transfer members have access to the same benefits as the spouses and dependent children of serving men and women and their husbands or wives who serve beside them. I commend the bill to the House.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012 seeks to amend the citizenship requirement for Australian Defence Force members. However, for a number of reasons the bill will not necessarily be as helpful as it is intended to be, and the government believes that its own legislative approach will address the issues in a far more comprehensive way. The government's main reason for opposing this bill is that the bill's definition of a 'family unit' is much more narrow in scope than that in the government's bill. The amendments in the government's bill are broader and more equitable in defining the families of ADF lateral recruits and their legal status in Australia after migrating. At the moment, an ADF member and any children under 16 are able to apply for a concessional residence requirement. Concessional treatment of ADF members under citizenship law has been in place since 1952. However, spouses and other family members, such as children over 16 and elderly parents, do not receive the same concession and have to wait for at least four years.

The government's bill will improve fairness by extending the same residence requirements to the spouse and family of ADF personnel, acknowledging that they are migrating to Australia as a family group, that they are all making a continuing commitment to Australia and that they are all facing similar settlement challenges. Regardless of our differences in this place, we all recognise that military service is dangerous and that the family of military personnel bear a share of this danger. They bear more stress and strain than most families do, particularly given the element of military service that is attached to their circumstances. The government's bill aims to assist Australia to attract personnel to highly specialist roles within the ADF, recognising that those skills will provide great benefit to us. This also reflects the fact that as we cooperate across countries in matters of defence we have a joint aim and aspiration to transfer skills amongst forces to ensure more efficient operation and efficient defence of our respective nations. There is currently an urgent need for the ADF to attract personnel to a group of specialist roles as lateral transfers from overseas. It is not necessarily the case that this has been an overly used provision.

Some ask why we need to embark on this course of action. In the small number of applications for citizenship since 2007, approximately 536 applications for citizenship have been made under the Defence service requirement of the citizenship act. Even though they are small in number, the value of what those people do for the ADF is tremendous. It will not necessarily be the case that all of these applicants will be overseas lateral recruits. The government's amendments will provide, as I indicated earlier, broader, more equitable coverage than what is proposed under the bill we are currently debating. There are a number of reasons for this.

The opposition bill does not cover all children over 18, such as disabled children, but only students under the age of 25. The opposition bill does not cover a dependent parent even though the parent may have migrated with the family. In addition, the opposition bill does not clarify whether or not the family members need to have permanently migrated with the ADF member. Finally, the opposition bill does not provide for the family member to remain eligible for citizenship in the event that the ADF member should pass away before they become eligible for citizenship.

It is also worth noting that the government's bill provides two technical amendments relating to this part of the citizenship act. Our bill clarifies that reserve service does not need to be continuous so long as it constitutes 90 days service in one or more of the reserves which a person was required for, attended and was entitled to be paid for. This arises from a case in which a person had been enrolled in the reserves for six months but completed only 3½ service days.

With the agreement of the Department of Defence, it is also proposed to amend the act to specify that 'relevant defence service' includes required attendance of at least 90 paid service days in the Naval, Army or Air Force Reserves instead of the current six-month service requirement. The reduction from 130 days to the proposed 90 days recognises that priority needs to be given to members of the permanent forces over members of the ADF Reserves in relation to training. It also means that members of the Defence Reserves will, in practice, spend only a small number of days each month actually performing paid service. The amendment will also assist the families of recruits in accessing employment opportunities or, should they require it, education assistance. It will also help them to build a close and continuing relationship to Australia. This group must still continue to satisfy all of the other existing criteria for citizenship such as identity, character, understanding the nature of their application, responsibilities and privileges of citizenship and, importantly, passing the citizenship test.

The government's bill provides a pathway for family members to access the relevant defence service eligibility in the tragic event that the ADF member dies while undertaking service. In this instance, the family will be treated as if the ADF member had completed their relevant defence service. While I acknowledge that the bill proposed by the member for Fadden is supportive of ADF members and their families, the government's bill goes much further. That is why we will be proposing the changes in our bill rather than supporting the narrow-cast changes contained in the bill we are currently debating.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this private member's bill moved by my friend and colleague, the member for Fadden. Serving in the armed forces, as he knows, is an admirable commitment, but it is a commitment made not only by the person wearing the uniform but also by their partners, families and children, who demonstrate remarkable courage in difficult circumstances and each make a sacrifice for our country in their own unique way. As a nation, we have an obligation to our servicemen and women, but also to their families who so graciously share their loved ones with us. In his famous letter of condolence to Mrs Bixby on the death of her five sons in the civil war, US President, Abraham Lincoln, wrote of:

… the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

To serve our nation, our soldiers and their families make a tremendous contribution and sacrifice.

Australia has a proud military history. The values that underscore that history are etched into stone at Isurava: values of endurance, mateship, sacrifice and courage. On the home front, the families know this as well. The spouses and children left behind wait by the phone and cross off each day on the calendar until their mother or father or loved ones come home. Each day, our soldiers risk their lives to protect this nation and safeguard our freedom, in our name and under our flag—and, far too often, they die protecting those values. We have a duty to support their families through thick and thin, but it is more important than that—it should be an honour. It should be something we willingly and openly pursue.

Furthermore, we as a country are privileged that hundreds of skilled servicemen and women who have served in the armed forces of other nations choose to migrate to Australia to join our ADF and fight under our flag for the freedoms we share and hold dear. Where gaps open up within our own ranks, the Australian Defence Force often looks to recruit personnel from overseas militaries to fulfil these critical capabilities across the Navy, Army and Airforce. These recruits are known as lateral transfers and they bring with them a high level of skill and qualifications that, realistically, could take over a decade for the Australian Defence Force to match by recruiting, training and upskilling personnel. Often, these skill needs must be met in a timely manner, so having the ability for these personnel, who already possess and practice the skills required, to transfer in from other militaries saves the government valuable time and resources.

Our lateral transfer recruits are drawn largely from the United Kingdom, but also from New Zealand, South Africa and, in recent years, the United States. According to research by Defence Families of Australia, lateral transferees usually bring their families and dependents with them to relocate to Australia. Currently, the Australian Citizenship Act makes some provision under sections 21 and 23 to accelerate citizenship for those transferees, but the same arrangements do not exist for their spouse or dependants. The coalition introduced the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirements) Bill 2012 into the House on Monday 21 May in an effort to synchronise these arrangements.

Under this bill, spouses and dependant children of lateral transfer members will be eligible for citizenship at the same time as the ADF members. This legislation will make sure that, by virtue of their citizenship, families and children of these troops will not unduly suffer, whether financially or otherwise, if that transfer member is killed in combat or in training, or leaves the family because of divorce. These are all tragic circumstances. Living with any of those scenarios would be a heavy burden to bear. It should not be the case that these moments of grief are unduly compounded for the family by financial concerns or fears, or by having to uproot and leave their home in Australia.

I note that the government has, in direct response, been shamed into introducing a carbon copy of this bill that is before the House today, rather than simply supporting this measure, and, if there are amendments that the government wants to put forward, approaching the coalition in order to see those amendments adopted, and graciously agreeing to what is a good idea. This government has sought, as we have just heard, to oppose this bill in this place in a petty and small-minded way to try to claim credit for a matter they have not sought to bring into this parliament.

In fact, it is worse than that: I note that in a letter from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel in relation to these matters, where Minister Snowdon had sought exactly the type of arrangements that are put forward in this bill, the minister for immigration says, 'I do not consider it necessary to amend the citizenship legislation taking all these factors into account.' So we have the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship who has stonewalled this measure for some time—a minister for immigration and citizenship who, as we learned today, is also at odds with his own Prime Minister on other matters. We have a minister for immigration and citizenship who seems unable to find anyone in this government who can agree with him on many matters, and particularly on this important one.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Cook, you are straying from the bill in front of the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am referring to this bill. On this matter before us today in this bill, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship rejected the offer from the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel to put these very measures in place, yet the government comes in here today and says that this is something it is keen to do. This is a government at war with itself! It is at war with itself over sensible policy. It is a government that cannot agree with itself. Rather than coming in here today in a spirit of bipartisan support for the families that are affected by this measure, the government wants to play petty politics. It wants to play petty games of one-upmanship by introducing another bill into the House, when it could simply support this bill, sit down in good faith and negotiate any amendments it may wish to put forward. The government should, frankly, be ashamed of itself in the way it is dealing with this bill.

The families of those lateral transfer members who are willing to give their lives and services to Australia in our Defence Force should be afforded the same citizenship status as the serving members. The ADF is currently seeking to recruit in the order of 300 lateral transfer members per year. Nine out of 10 of these transferees have families they would wish to bring to Australia with them. The Royal Australian Navy, for example, is currently reaping the benefits of a drop in personnel across Britain's armed services that is largely due to the UK's strategic defence and security review, and using these recruits to fill gaps within its own ranks via the lateral transfer process.

Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, a permanent resident may be granted citizenship after completing 90 days of permanent service in the ADF or six months of service in the reserves. While this section is often used to support early citizenship for a lateral transfer member of the ADF, these accelerated provisions do not apply to that person's spouse or dependant under 18. Understandably, this out of step legislation can create discord within families of lateral transfer members. It can produce significant financial hardship for families on a day-to-day basis, as the spouse is ineligible for welfare support. The reality is that lateral transfer members are deployed, serving in the theatres and operations around the world, and, if the unthinkable should happen and that member dies, whether it be in combat or in training or otherwise, under current law there is no guarantee that their spouse and children would be able to stay in Australia, or access the support that would normally be extended to the families of Australian ADF personnel. As a permanent resident a member's spouse and dependants over 18 are required to reside in Australia for two years before they are entitled to the majority of social security payments. This often creates significant hardship for the families of lateral transferees. There has been unanimous support for the stakeholders the coalition has spoken with around this bill. In my own electorate of Cook, I met recently with a young lady who was in this exact predicament. Her husband transferred into the Australian armed forces from the UK. They are raising their young family in the shire. Her husband and her school-age children have been granted citizenship but, despite being a permanent resident, she will not qualify until January next year. It makes life difficult being the only person in a family whose residency is completely out of step with everyone else's, particularly given her husband's sacrifices. No-one needs that added level of uncertainty and confusion, especially with everything else this family has to contend with.

These are mums and dads who set the alarm for six every morning and get up without fail to make the lunches and pack the kids off to school knowing their partner is on the other side of the world putting their life on the line. The families have to deal with deployment schedules and constant separation, their hearts skipping a beat each and every time a casualty is reported on television. That is real bravery that far too often goes unrecognised.

This bill offers the families of lateral transfer members peace of mind—and that is the least we can do. The government has made assurances that, under these circumstances, support will be provided. This bill writes this into the letter of the law. In introducing this legislation my colleague the member for Fadden said that it honours those who honour us. This bill is indeed fitting and wholly appropriate and I commend it to the House. I recall that, when the member for Fadden first brought this matter to my attention, I immediately agreed. It was not something that I thought should be resisted at all. I thought this was the least an immigration minister should do to support those serving under our flag, serving our values and seeking to have those values fought for and defended around the world. The minister should be ashamed of his opposition to that measure and the government should be ashamed of their opposition to this bill for nothing more than petty politics.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the bill by the honourable member for Fadden not because I do not support the mover's intent and the sentiment of the bill—clearly I do, as other members do—but because the government has a bill before the House in a very similar area that broadens the categories of the member for Fadden's bill. That means I will be speaking somewhat to the government's bill by way of explaining why I am supporting it and not the private member's bill. I was pleased to hear the honourable member for Fadden say in his contribution that he would support whichever bill gets up first. You are far more gracious than the honourable member for Cook, who is extolling us to graciousness with ungracious comments. So I will try and stick to graciousness with this bill; it is important because we are talking about the defence forces and those people who serve our country and our nation.

The government bill in this area enables family members of current and future overseas lateral recruits to the Australian Defence Force to satisfy the residence requirement for Australian citizenship at the same time as the enlisted ADF member. The current provision is that an ADF member and any children under 16 are provided with concessional residence requirements. That means they can apply for Australian citizenship after 90 days of service in the permanent forces or six months in the reserve forces. Spouses and other family members, including children over 16 and elderly parents, do not receive the same concession and must wait for at least four years. This is an important point because a family is not just the spouse; it is also children and can be parents and other family members. The way the current provision applies is discriminatory because, if someone who comes here to serve our nation has children of whatever age and dependent family members—it might be their elderly parents—they should be entitled to have the same citizenship provision apply.

What the government's bill does that is broader than the honourable member for Fadden's bill is improve fairness by extending the same residence requirements to the spouse and family of ADF personnel, acknowledging that they are migrating to Australia together as a family group and face similar challenges and issues as the primary person would. The agreement will assist the families of recruits in accessing employment opportunities and education assistance. As well, it will assist in developing their close and continuous relationship with Australia.

What the amendment aims to do is assist Australia to attract personnel to highly specialised roles in the ADF where we require people to fill those positions. As I have travelled around visiting various defence bases I have met with members of the defence forces who are subject to this bill. It is always pleasing to meet these people, talk to them and find out what they are doing here. I can understand why they want similar courtesies and considerations to apply to their families.

The opposition's bill, which is the honourable member for Fadden's bill, does not cover all children over 18, such as disabled children and dependent children under 25, and it does not cover a dependent parent who migrates here with their family. The government's bill includes the broader category and therefore it has a broader definition and operation for 'family'. The honourable member for Fadden's bill does not clarify whether or not the family members need to have permanently migrated or whether the family members remain eligible for citizenship in the event that the ADF member dies before they become citizens. I have read the explanatory memorandums on both bills—the bill we are currently debating and the government's bill. The point about the member dying before they become a citizen is not clear to me in the honourable member for Fadden's bill.

There are couple of other things that I want to say. I think I heard the honourable member for Fadden say that the government had four years to do this. If we are into looking at why it was not done before, I can say the opposition had 12 years, and I did not see them making any fast moves on it. It is being done now and it is being done by the government and that is a good thing.

The explanatory memorandum with the government's bill talks about what it clarifies. It uses the word 'fairness' as well. It says:

The amendments … will improve fairness by extending the same residence requirements to the family of ADF lateral recruits—

but it adds—

… families of ADF lateral recruits migrate to Australia as a family unit and all face similar settlement challenges. The amendments in this Bill will assist these families settling in Australia …

That is really important.

It also says:

The financial impact of these amendments is low. The cost of implementing these amendments to the Act will be met within existing resources of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

Quite often bills of this nature would attract some considerable costs, but they are costs that can be borne within and they are low.

I also looked at a statement of compatibility with human rights attached to the explanatory memorandum. It is also pleasing to note that, with the operation of that law and the committee, we are getting these statements attached to legislation. It is one of the first things that I think a lot of members now read. It say clearly that the bill is 'compatible with human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed' in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) 2011—the bills that are associated with what we often call the International Bill of Human Rights. It concludes that:

This Bill is compatible with human rights, as it does not raise any human rights issues.

My comment on that is that it actually gives effect to the rights of families to be together as a family unit and have the same considerations apply to them, and that is a good thing.

The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Mr Snowdon, in his second reading speech in this place on the government bill said that 'Australian citizenship law has had specific arrangements to acknowledge that service in the Australian military' demonstrates a number of things. He noted that there have been provisions in the legislation over a long period of time but that 'there are three issues that the government considers must be addressed and this bill addresses these issues'.

The honourable member for Fadden's bill addresses some of those issues, but it does not extend to the broader issues that need to be addressed, specifically the three issues. I have mentioned what they are in terms of the broader definition of the family that includes various categories of children and those with disabilities and elderly parents in the situation if someone dies.

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Service Requirement) Bill 2012, moved by my friend and colleague the member for Fadden. This bill is about fairness and equity. This bill is about inclusiveness and inclusion. I note that the member for Chifley said that he was worried that the bill was narrow in scope. In 2011 we were talking about 10 people serving overseas on lateral transfers. It is narrow by nature. We are not talking about a huge number of people here. There is a narrow band of people asking for this. There is no brand of people for whom we are trying to seek representation. Therefore, it has to be narrow.

The government has had enough chances to do something here and, as soon as the coalition comes up with something, we have another bill in the House. The member for Cook was right when he said that the bill is a carbon copy of our bill. It is, as he stated, petty in the extreme. I like the member for Page. She said that we had 11 years in government. Hawke and Keating had 13 years before that. Fraser had eight years before that. Whitlam had three years before that. Menzies had 132 years in government. And they did not do anything about it. The Labor Party is in government now.

Later transfers are on the increase and, therefore, it is an issue of now. The Labor Party is in government now and it has taken the coalition to bring a private members' bill for the Labor Party to actually do something. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship knocked this on the head previously. It has taken the coalition to bring this thing forward so I get frustrated with those sorts of arguments.

Townsville is home to Australia's largest defence installation at Lavarack Barracks. Our newest member, 3RAR, has a number of British and South African officers and soldiers. Their welcoming parade that was held recently dates back to the 16th century in the UK. So we have strong links, especially military links. The parade starts with an explosion to get people back off the battlefield. Then they go out and pick up the dead and the injured. They bring them back inside and they close the gates. So it is about what has happened before; it is about tradition.

If it is good enough for these soldiers to come to Australia and represent Australia, and to go overseas and risk their lives, surely it is good enough for us to look after their families. To give the families who are coming with them access to Medicare, schools, universities—all the benefits that we should extend—is pure human decency and something that we should extend to them in the soonest possible time. We need to make sure we are helping and make sure we do the right thing by them and get these things to happen. This is a value-adding exercise. These are the people we want in our country. These are the people who are highly skilled in key roles in our country. Their families add to our schools, and they add to our rugby teams and cricket teams—if they are English, they do not add too much to the cricket teams but at least they add to the fabric of our society. They enrich my city and they bring good and great qualities to this country.

This is a two-way street: we win and they win. As the member for Fadden was at pains to explain, this is about fairness, this is about inclusion, this is about looking after those who come with them. We in this House also have families that we leave behind. I have a wife and three children and they have to put up with a lot of things because I am away a lot. People in the Defence Force have no real control over where they go around this country, and they have a lot of things that they have to look after. We must do the best we can for Australian partners and families of soldiers and for those who also have to adapt to a new country. Those are the sorts of things that we must do, that we should be doing, and that is what this bill addresses.

As the member for Fadden said, it is right and just that we move this private members' bill. As I said, Townsville has just farewelled another group, including the lieutenant colonel in charge of 3RAR, to Afghanistan, and in that there are a number of English, Canadian and South African soldiers and officers. Their families are still in Townsville, where recently I had a fair bit to do with the family of a man whose sergeant said he was lucky to keep his leg. He was one of the guys who was shot on parade. If that happens to someone who is not quite an Australian citizen, if that happens to someone who is not covered by Medicare, and if someone were to die—those are the sorts of things we have to cover and this bill addresses that. I urge those on the other side, whichever bill gets up first, to just get this thing organised, because it has to go ahead.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Herbert for sharing that fascinating history of that parade. I too am fascinated by military history, the richness and diversity of it and how it often links back to unusual experiences and battles of the past. I always enjoy going to parades out at ADFA and attending commemorative days around the Australian War Memorial, so I thank the member for Herbert for sharing that fascinating piece of military history.

While it is commendable of the member for Fadden to bring this bill before the House, the fact is that this bill will soon be superseded by the government's own Australian Citizenship Amendment (Defence Families) Bill. Both bills focus on the concessional residence requirements of ADF personnel and their families, but it is the government's bill that will make the amendments necessary to ensure all family members are treated equally. Currently the legislation states that an ADF member and any children under 16 are able to apply for Australian citizenship after 90 days of service in the permanent forces, or six months in the reserve forces. Meanwhile, spouses and other family members, such as children over 16 or elderly parents, do not receive the same concession and must wait for at least four years to be eligible for citizenship. What this means is that, presently, members of the same family are treated differently. For example, the serviceman father and his 14-year-old child will become citizens, while the mother and their 17-year-old child will have to wait up to four years.

It is only fair that the government extend the same residence requirements to the spouse and family of ADF personnel. After all, they are migrating to Australia as a family group, they are all making a continuing commitment to Australia, they are making a continuing commitment to the defence of our nation and they are all facing similar settlement challenges.

Last year the member for Fadden and I were in Afghanistan together, and on one of the trips flying over Afghanistan I met an ADF member who was from Germany. I do not know whether the member for Fadden met him but he was an incredibly impressive young man. He had made the decision to join the ADF because he was concerned that in Germany the services were not treated with the respect they are in Australia. He had the greatest admiration for the ADF, for the commanders in the ADF and for the commitment of the nation to our service personnel. So he actually made a commitment to join the ADF through a deep philosophical commitment to securing the defence of a nation. It was incredibly admirable. As I said, he was an impressive young man and, when talking about this piece of legislation, he is the one I think of in terms of him keeping his family together.

While the member for Fadden's bill is similar to ours, the government's amendments actually provide broader and more equitable coverage than the opposition's bill. Our bill will fast-track Australian citizenship for the family members of ADF personnel. Our bill is much fairer. For example, the opposition's bill covers children only between the age of 18 and 25 if they are students, and this does not take into account the fact that there may be disabled children in the family; the opposition's bill does not cover a dependent parent, even though the parent may have migrated with the family; the opposition's bill does not clarify whether or not the family members need to have permanently migrated with the ADF member; and the opposition's bill does not allow for the family members to remain eligible for citizenship in the event that the ADF member dies before they become eligible for citizenship.

Our bill, on the other hand, seeks to allow family members of current and future overseas lateral recruits to the ADF to satisfy the residence requirement for Australian citizenship at the same time as the enlisted ADF family member. Not only will this acknowledge the commitment they are making by migrating to Australia together as a group; it will also help the families of recruits in accessing employment opportunities and education assistance and help them build a closer and continuing relationship with Australia.

Our amendments are important because they will provide more equitable treatment and greater certainty for ADF lateral recruits and their families. So, while I am pleased that the member for Fadden supports these improvements, I cannot support this bill knowing that the government's own bill will go even further and make more substantial amendments to legislation. The bill is considerably too narrow. What is needed is a much broader approach to assisting the families of ADF personnel.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to all members who participated in that debate. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.